Author
Topic: Monophysitism (Read 2022 times)

I love that many here like to tell us who are Oriental Orthodox believers what we believe. They tell us we are monophysites and Eutychian. That's news to me! As one who goes to a Coptic Church, I have never heard this view espoused, yet those who aren't even Coptic, Armenian, etc. like to insist that they know what we believe. So, I am going to try to go through the major issue:

EO believe in the full humanity of Christ, that He was consubstantial with usOO believe in the full humanity of Christ, that He was consubstantial with us

EO believe in the full deity of Christ, that He is God incarnate.OO believe in the full deity of Christ, that He is God incarnate.

The OO Church espouses MIAPHYSITISM. That in Christ is one nature made up of His full humanity and full deity, the fullness of Christ, in both humanity and deity, is indivisible, yet united without confusion of the two, nor mingling of the two.

I don't know how I could spell it out more clearly, or using more layman terminology. Invariably, some of you will still try and tell us what we believe, because you are some kind of authority on the subject or something. Well, go ahead. I know what I believe and I know what my Church believes.

Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)

SetFree......I think the Nestorians would agree to all those terms....'ceptin' that they believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered from some sort of Bipolar Mania or Multiple Personality Disorder.....the key phrase is this, "One of the Holy Trinity suffered for us in the flesh".....now THAT phrase, the Nestorians couldn't handle!

I love that many here like to tell us who are Oriental Orthodox believers what we believe. They tell us we are monophysites and Eutychian. That's news to me! As one who goes to a Coptic Church, I have never heard this view espoused, yet those who aren't even Coptic, Armenian, etc. like to insist that they know what we believe.

Wow...take a breath, man. There might be some like that out there, but it ain't all of us.

I love that many here like to tell us who are Oriental Orthodox believers what we believe. They tell us we are monophysites and Eutychian. That's news to me! As one who goes to a Coptic Church, I have never heard this view espoused, yet those who aren't even Coptic, Armenian, etc. like to insist that they know what we believe. So, I am going to try to go through the major issue:

EO believe in the full humanity of Christ, that He was consubstantial with usOO believe in the full humanity of Christ, that He was consubstantial with us

EO believe in the full deity of Christ, that He is God incarnate.OO believe in the full deity of Christ, that He is God incarnate.

The OO Church espouses MIAPHYSITISM. That in Christ is one nature made up of His full humanity and full deity, the fullness of Christ, in both humanity and deity, is indivisible, yet united without confusion of the two, nor mingling of the two.

I don't know how I could spell it out more clearly, or using more layman terminology. Invariably, some of you will still try and tell us what we believe, because you are some kind of authority on the subject or something. Well, go ahead. I know what I believe and I know what my Church believes.

Adrian no one is telling you what you believe. Rather the Non-Chalcedonians here have outspokenly told us what they believe and some , such as myself, have said that it sounds somewhat like Monothelitism. Okay if you do not like it but I cannot remember any Orthodox here telling you what you believe.

Very good, as far as it goes. Now, would you say Chalcedon is an Orthodox Synod? Are the following Synods Orthodox? If so, great - then you should encourage your hierarchs to accept them as being Orthodox, accept them as being Ecumenical (even more so because now they're giving their assent to them!), and put us all on a firm basis for saying we're all on the "same boat."

However, if you sincerely believe Chalcedon is theologically wanting or erroneous, then we obviously have a problem.

I'd also like to add as an aside, that I'm not sure if any of the debates/discussions on this topic have gotten anywhere thus far. This is completely beside the fact that nothing any of us here says or thinks, is going to make a lick of difference when it comes to what hierarchs on "both sides" will say and do to help bring some kind of legit resolution to all of this. I guess what I'm saying here is, it's good for people to know why they believe as they do... but in the end, I don't think anyone here should be taking themselves too seriously, as if their "winning points" is going to have any consequence in the grand scheme of things.

I think the position of the Oriental Orthodox Church is quite clear, and such a position is clearly in conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

+ Doctrinally speaking, we have no dispute, we essentially hold to the same Christological principles. We both confess:

1) That Christ is One hypostasis/person2) The Word was the subject of the Incarnation.3) The divinity of Christ united with His humanity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration (hence the continuing reality of their existence and distinctness)4) His divinity - consubstantial with The Father. His humanity - consubstantial with mankind.4) His divinity never separated from His humanity for a single moment, nor the twinkling of an eye.5) Christ has a natural human will and a natural divine will, however ultimately He possesses one personal will, for it is always The Word who wills.

+ With regards to the councils, we have major disputes. The Oriental Orthodox Church cannot and will never subscribe to councils 4-7 as Ecumenical Councils, but merely acknowledge them as local Orthodox councils for the EO Church.

1) They did not represent universal Orthodoxy - and we obviously understand ourselves as a legitimate part of the universal Orthodox Church, who have maintained the Orthodox faith handed down to us by our fathers, without the need of councils 4-7. This is a historical fact.2) Chalcedon was a council of schism.3) Chalcedon was not Ecumenically motivated - It wasn't facing any real threat to the Church.4) Chalcedon's achievements were destructive to the ontology of the Church as opposed to productive.5) Chalcedon did not provide a well-balanced Orthodox Christology in and of itself - only when it is anachronistically studied in a sixth century context.6) Chalcedon's regression from Strong Alexandrian Christology (which was sound in and of itself - hence the fact it was never taken to it wasnt capable of practically being take to its heretical extreme to any significant extent) and its lean towards Antiochene Christology (which was defective and prone to Nestorianism) finds no justification in its historical context.7) Councils 4-7 falsely condemned and anathemized Saints and Teachers of The Orthodox Faith.

One Church's position regarding the status of the councils in question, is correct and justified, the other isn't. I see no other reasonable instrument for discernment, other than reasoning through dialogue. Both Church's have blessed Saints and Martyrs, and both Church's have been blessed with miracles - weeping icons, apparitions etc. So I see no other reasonable way to discern the truth of the matter except by reason. It seems the EO do not want to dialogue, and do not want to consider that they may have got it wrong - reason is dropped - our Church's will remain in dissonance, and I guess we can just all be happy and comfortable with our own respective positions.

I'm sure setfree is able to make up his mind on this issue, through much contemplation, prayer and fasting. When he first PM'd me (and I hope you dont mind me mentioning this SetFree) before he decided to accept Coptic Orthododxy, I recommended that he attend the divine liturgies of both the EO and OO Church, to consult their respective priests, to pray often, and to ultimately choose the Church he feels most at peace with and the Church Christ ultimately leads his heart towards. I do not deny the Orthoodxy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor the validity of their sacraments. I wouldnt have advised him in such a manner if it were otherwise.

(Okay I know I said it before, but I am SERIOUSLY finished with this forum now for the next month or so...geez im so tired of saying that)

Remember me in your prayers,

Peace.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2005, 05:44:53 PM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Augustine, I am not trying to argue anything here. I am just trying to point out that we aren't monophysites. I was venting when I wrote this and felt this was the appropriate place to put my vent session. I know the debates aren't going anywhere. I'm not debating.

About Chalcedon and the following councils, isn't accepting the spirit of the council more important than accepting its ecumenicity (which is purely a historical thing). As EA said, I don't accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical, because it was a council that spurred division in the Church. Also, it was unnecessary. Ephesus defined the Christology of the Orthodox Church, Chalcedon was overkill. Especially in light of the fact that Eutyches was a monk. He was no bishop or patriarch who would have a grand sphere of influence. Why, if Eutyches warranted an "Ecumenical" Council, did not every monk who ever espoused a heretical doctrine warrant one??? Or Priest, or anyone else??? Did the Bogomil heresy warrant an ecumenical council??? No.

As for other councils...as I said the spirit is more important than its historical status. Obviously the OO, who have icons, who venerate said icons, who venerate the true cross, etc. affirm the iconodules and reject the iconoclasts. They do that and didn't need the 7th council to affirm it.

Sabbas, When someone calls the Oriental Orthodox "monophysites" when they aren't, that would be classified as telling the Oriental Orthodox what they believe. Especially when OO believers have constantly expressed an orthodox Christology, yet are still counted heretics because of their Christology.

Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)

Pedro, Lo siento mucho. I didn't mean to demonize the EO at all. I said many liked to tell us what we believe. I didn't mean all people here did. I should have emphasized that a little better. Sorry again.

Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)